Maizing's page

Honestly the hermaphrodite thing seems perfectly fine to me and I don't see what the big deal is. It's a thing that does not occur in humans (to my knowledge) and further drives home the otherworldly / unusual nature of tieflings. I see it as no more deserving of scorn than things like vestigial tails (which some humans are born with in reality).

Honestly, though I hadn't planned to toss my coppers into the pot on this one, I think railing against the correct usage of the word (being a creature with multiple functional reproductive systems associated with being male/female) is a perpetuation of ignorance. The same kind of ignorance that leads to bigoted thinking.

Don't hate the word, and don't steal people's cookies. Educate others that intersexed people are not hermaphrodites, don't hide the word or stop using it. All that does is give it power and alienate people for silly reasons. Stop drawing lines in the sand and seek unity. >_>

I for one really like the idea of having a character that could be both a father and a mother (without shapeshifting magics) and think such a thing would really make you think in the fantastic for a moment. In much the same way, a character who reproduces aesexually would also be an interesting thing to consider when developing a character.

But yeah, honestly the anti-hermaphrodite thing just comes off to me as really ignorant and destructive. Rather than fixing a problem (through education) it seeks to hide away what is seen as unacceptable or uncomfortable (a word that is sometimes misused), which in my mind directly mirrors the exact destructive thinking that causes the issue in the first place.

I have to agree with this poster.

1) I would think that an intersex person who is offended by being called a hermaphrodite would be like a Japanese person who was offended by being called a Chinese: the offense being due to the fact that that is not what they are.

I would not expect an intersex person to be offended by an actual hermaphrodite being called that any more than I would expect a Japanese person to be offended by hearing someone from China being called a Chinese.

If an intersex person really does find the proper use of the word hermaphrodite to be offensive, I would have to consider that as bigoted as I would if a Japanese person was offended at the mere mention of Chinese.

...and really, are there not already enough offensive words in existence? Do we really need to tarnish more words with that label?

2) If it is absolutely necessary to use a different word than hermaphrodite, may I suggest "dual-sex" rather than either "intersex" (which has a specific meaning and is not a synonym for hermaphrodite) or some made up word whose meaning is not immediately obvious?

This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):

Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.

Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.

My issue is that the Girdle of Opposite Gender is referred to as a "cursed" item. Transformation from one gender to the other is referred to as a curse, and for some people that's not a bug it's a feature.

I think the Girdle of Opposite Gender should just be a magic item. One that's relatively easy to make (Alter Self as a prerequisite). No mentions of curses.

It is a cursed item because the change is involuntary. In the same way, a magic item that made any change to a character against that character's will would be cursed... even if some would consider that change a good thing. Admittedly, a non-cursed version would be possible, and I can see such being used deliberately by some individuals.

Personally, I would never use such for any of my characters and if any of them were subjected to the effects, I would do my best to get it reversed. If I had wanted it that way, I would have made it that way to begin with... because when I make a character, I choose which gender I want that particular character to be and do not wish it changed (and I have both male and female characters).

I think that this is one of the great features of games like this, that the characters' gender (and gender identity) is determined by the players themselves, so a character would only be trans-gendered if the player actually wished it to be.

I will also add that I find this item less of an issue than I do the helm of opposite alignment. This item only affects the character's physical form, the helm affects the character mentally... and regardless of what is done to my characters' physical bodies, what makes them mine is what goes on inside their heads.

Maizing wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Characters with crafting feats are not obligated in any way to provide services to the group.

Exactly! Being able to craft stuff does not make the character the party's slave.

Characters with healing spells are not obligated in any way to provide services to the group.

/sarcasm

You may not realize it, but that is the logical conclusion to the line of reasoning that you are following.

Characters with crafting feats are not obligated in any way to provide services to the group.

Exactly! Being able to craft stuff does not make the character the party's slave.

My view: If a party member chose to make stuff for me for free, I would personally feel that I needed to do something extra for that character in return. If, instead, the character asked for a modest payment in gold (while still giving me a better deal than I could ever expect from an NPC), that would "let me off the hook" (as it were). Either way, I would not feel that the other party member "owed" it to me to make me stuff for free.

I will add that I have never played a character who can craft anything, so my attitude is that of one who would be the beneficiary of a party member who can craft and is willing to craft for the other party members.

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

So what about when the spell wears off and she realizes that YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND? Her will was compromised whether you will admit it or not.

Or do you think it is not rape if she doesn't scream or struggle?

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?

Let me take a different approach...

Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?

Yes, that is clearly rape.

Quote:

Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?

Again yes, but it would still be rape if he used a high bluff check instead of charm person, would it not?

...but that is exactly the way using a Charm Person spell would work... so you have just admitted that it is rape to get a charmed person to sleep with someone.

Why is it, that I get the feeling that, while there are both male and female players saying that this use of a charm person spell would be rape, that there only male players saying that it would not be?

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Razh wrote:

Im asking more on the lines of morally dubious things like charming an innocent barmaid to sleep with you, when normally she would never agree to it.

IMO, there's nothing "morally dubious" about that, any more than there's anything "morally dubious" about giving someone a drug that incapacitates them so you can rape them. Either way, it's evil.

I would say Charm Person is more akin to lying than drugging someone. However I'm in the "Charm Person doesn't equal Dominate Person" crowd. So I certainly wouldn't consider it a good thing, but a far cry from rape (at least in my games).

A person under any sort of mental compulsion can't meaningfully consent.

Exactly!

Charm person impairs the victim's will. Even if the barmaid would normally sleep with anyone who asked, even if she made her living as a prostitute, for her to sleep with someone while under the effects of a spell such as charm person would be rape.

I would like to add that if a character of mine were charmed, and the GM allowed the one who charmed my character to do something of this nature, that I would leave that gaming group. It would not matter if the character who charmed my character were a PC or an NPC (nor would the genders of the characters in question matter)... I would not play with a group where that could happen.

The same rules that apply to PCs should apply to NPCs.

Alignment does not restrict or prevent any actions, at all. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way round.

If you're having problem with a player's behavior, the correct action is to talk to the player about the expectations of the game and his character, not use ham-handed control-freaking.

I've not used alignment in years, and I've found roleplaying to be better, because nobody makes the mistake of looking at their sheet and going 'Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ...' which is wrong. People actually roleplay a character, not an alignment.

In my book, THAT'S good.

The best alignment rule set that I have ever come across was from an alternative rule book for D&D that I picked up once many years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know what happened to the book.

I do (more or less) remember how alignment was handled in that book though. Basically, each character set up a set of guidelines for what that character would or would not do. For example, there were a number of options with regards to how the character views torture (and how these views range from good to evil), such as:

1) Character would not resort to torture for any reason (extreme good).
2) Character would only use torture to obtain vital information if all other options had failed and the character believed that torture is the only thing that would work.
3) Character would use torture regularly, but only to extract information and does not enjoy the process.
4) Character only uses torture in order to obtain information, but enjoys doing this.
5) Character employs torture purely for pleasure regardless of whether any information is obtained (extreme evil).

I may have forgotten a few of the options, but you get the idea. If I remember right, there was actually a questionnaire for the player to fill out to indicate the character's moral code. It was a lot less two dimensional than the standard D&D alignment system. The book also had some sample moral codes showing how they would work as an indication of the character's alignment. An interesting note, is that it is perfectly possible for an evil character to be repulsed by the idea of torture ("Sure, I have murdered millions of innocent intelligent beings, but I never TORTURED anyone!").

The fact is though, that there are some things that good characters would never do... if they wanted to stay good. So while you are technically right in saying that the player should not look at their character sheet and say, "Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ..." If the character DOES do things that a LG character would NOT do, then their alignment would change to reflect the change to their moral code.

Funny thing is, what you said at the beginning of your post actually says this! So yeah, actions determine alignment... but doesn't that fact contradict your claim that you do not use alignment? Or do the players in your campaign just do anything they choose with no consequences? ("Yeah, I am a paladin, a paragon of virtue, and my friend here is a sadistic murderer. What of it?")

Personally, I cannot see a paladin (who is supposed to be good) associating with an evil character, if for no other reason than that they would have nothing in common.

Here's an idea... instead of an "ignore" function, maybe a "hide this post" function could be added to the boards? I have found (on many boards), that often there will be one (or more) posters who will make posts that can range from thought provoking to inflammatory. In such cases, I would flag the inflammatory posts, but read (and perhaps respond to) the others.

Perhaps flagging a post could hide it? Or give the option to hide it (in case the flag was a mistake)?